2018 MOST WANTED FAIRWAY WOOD

Our Mission:

We are independent, unbiased and always put the #ConsumerFirst. We spend thousands of hours testing and researching products to help you get the most out of your game. This way you can be sure you have reviews you can trust. >> READ MORE

INDEPENDENT & UNBIASED

MyGolfSpy accepts $0 advertising dollars from any of the major golf manufacturers. We believe in always putting #ConsumerFirst.

100

HoursResearched

24

ProductsConsidered

4,959

ShotsHit

34.4m

Readers

INDEPENDENT & UNBIASED

MyGolfSpy accepts $0 advertising dollars from any of the major golf manufacturers. We believe in always putting #ConsumerFirst.

100

HoursResearched

24

ProductsConsidered

4,959

ShotsHit

34.4m

Readers

What characteristics determine a great fairway wood?

Is it Distance? Accuracy? Forgiveness? We’ve found that it’s a combination of all those things. This year we leveraged our testing facility in Virginia to deliver the most comprehensive, unbiased Fairway Wood Test in the world. If you’re in the market for new fairway wood in 2018, this is for you.

Data You Can Trust

At MyGolfSpy our job is to provide independent, unbiased, and objective testing of products that help increase consumer confidence. We do this by employing consistent testing methodologies and advanced golf analytics inside our 100% independent test facility. The consumer is then able to apply the industry’s richest set of head-to-head data collection to help unlock their full potential. Our testing provides unparalleled data which equals unparalleled insight for the golfer.

We are here to help you find golf equipment that you will not only love but want to keep. We don’t want you spending a dollar unless it improves on what’s already in the bag.

Advanced Golf Analytics

Data matters. And when it comes to finding the right equipment, it’s critical. We help solve this by applying the largest connected set of head-to-head data to tackle one of golf’s biggest challenges.

All testing was conducted inside our fully independent test facility located in Virginia. All testers used Bridgestone Tour-B RX golf ballsfor consistency and to reduce test variables. All ball data was collected using the world’s most trusted launch monitor, Foresight Sports. All head data was captured using the Foresight HMT device. This comprehensive dataset was then run through our proprietary Most Wanted Rankings methodology that we have developed called TRUERank. What we have developed is the most accurate test to determine the leaders in the fairway wood category.

SHOTS HIT: 4,959

DATA POINTS: 208,278

TIME: 100 hours

TESTERS: 20

HANDICAP RANGE: 0-18

AGE RANGE: 24-84

SWING SPEED RANGE: 62mph – 125mph

Data. Aggregated. Normalized. Delivered.

For more details on our testing process and methodologies, see our How We Test page.

GIVEAWAY: Win a Shot Scope V2 prize package

Shot Scope Golf

Enter MyGolfSpy’s Giveaway!

2018 Fairway Wood Rankings

Exotics CBX

Distance

220.18 yds

Accuracy

15.04 yds

Spin

2,929 rpm

Launch

11.84 deg

Ball Speed

132.27 mph

1

Shop & Support

When you shop online consider using our special link. It helps support this site and other golfers around the world. #ConsumerFirst

GET FIT FOR YOUR GAME WITH TRUEGOLFFIT™

Support Unbiased Testing.

Our job is your game.

DID YOU KNOW: If only 1% of MyGolfSpy readers donated $25, we would be able to become completely independent in 12-months.

Would you be willing to help by giving a donation? Every dollar will help. Make a donation to support our independent and expert golf equipment research. A PayPal account is not required in order to donate.

Donate to MGS

MyGolfSpy

Our mission is #ConsumerFirst. We are here to help educate and empower golfers. We want you to get the most out of your
money, time and performance.
That means providing you with equipment reviews you can trust,
as well as honest reporting on the latest issues affecting the game
today.
#PowerToThePlayer

74 Comments

BirdieSpy

Colin

9 months ago

I may have missed it but were these shots from a tee or off the deck? I would guess the results of each could be very different from one another as some fairway metals are great off the tee but hard to hit off the deck and vise versa.

Mikewales

10 months ago

Cobra are making a marketing point that their F8 clubs have the Arccos system included at no additional cost. When i bought my Cobra irons and a hybrid i was assured that any Android phone would work with the Arccos system. They do not. This note is merely to make sure that if you intend buying The Cobra clubs with the Arccos system you make sure you have a mobile phone that is compatible.

Jason

9 months ago

I have a samsung s8 and the arccos system works perfectly fine. Only bugs that I find is it drains your battery something fierce. To combat that I turn off my mobile data during the round and that helps a lot.

Also, I have to double check my strokes. It will miss sand shots and add extra strokes to my putter.

I am super happy with arccos though. I think lessons, practice and the app have really helped my game. I went from a 18 handicap to a 13 after I got arccos, however, that is also when I started getting more lessons too.

scott

10 months ago

I love to read your golf club testing results because if someones club maker isn’t number one on the list, I get to read how your test sucks and why ( a great read ) Next you get to read how far they hit their 5 Iron ( 210 ) or Driver ( 305 ) then they tell us how fast they all swing 118 mpg what a load of bull crap my guess is only PGA pro’s read and comment on your web site because most golfers can hit a 7 iron 150 yards. thanks, keep up the great work you all do

Funkaholic

Dr Tee

10 months ago

Glad to see Exotics out on top where they should be–I have been playing them for >15 years. Clearly the most beautiful and longest fairways around. Of course, yardages may depend very much on swing and path rather than publiched or adjusted loft–for example–I hit my CBX 4 wood 10 yards farther than my Titleist 3 wood. Feel, look, spin, and control with fairways is very much individualized.

Greg P

10 months ago

Don’t see how you can call a clear cut winner with that data. The differences from top to bottom are so small. Just demonstrates, I suppose, that it truly is hard to find a “bad” club nowadays. The competition is so keen.

Todd

10 months ago

Test the CBX before you just order online

I did my own test yesterday on GC2. Hit 10 balls each after warming up with each one. Rogue was longest for me by 10 yards. Cobra F8 was right behind it and actually felt the best with tightest dispersion. Now to the Exotics CBX.
It was not as long as those 2 for me. It felt tingy and was harder for me to hit off the deck. My current gamer is a 917 F2 titleist. I like it for the accuracy I have with it. I also use a ping G400 from time to time. After all that said…I would never put the CBX in my bag after what I saw and felt yesterday. It could have been the shaft selection. I use tensei pro blue 70 stiff in mine..I tried several Px types and weights but couldn’t get a good feel. My driver swing speed is 95-100. My current driver is G400 max!
I make most of my choices with a 3 wood based on accuracy and ability to hit off deck.
I’m a 10 handicap (Sometimes).

mark davis

10 months ago

Thank you, Tony, for another very interesting test. And for sticking to your guns. And for your clear language. I am certainly not a math major. You test the way you test. It’s all out there. You’ve determined the test parameters that MyGolfSpy will use and you’re using them. That, in itself, is a baseline for further tests. Please continue. At the end of the day, humans hit golf balls. Unless you use Iron Byron, the variabilities are mindblowing. I think your methodology is sound in addressing that fact, and in giving MyGolfSpy readers a sense of consistency in terms of testing…. inasmuch as at the end of day, it’s humans flailing at a tiny white ball. (Science can only do so much, after all.) My 2¢, YMMV.

DougE

10 months ago

This is all well and good, and I appreciate the effort that went into it, however, the results really don’t tell a whole lot. Certainly not which is better than another. So much depends on the variables of the swingers, swings and days they are swinging.

As an example, I noticed that the Titleist 917F had very different numbers this year than it did in the 2017 version of the same testing. It was second in its finishing spot overall last year but way down the list this year. Same club. Yet, the carry distance is significantly different from last year to this year, relative to the rest of the field. Spin is 200 rpms less this year. Again, that changes a lot in terms of how it compares to others on the list. Why so different? Same club. Different people swinging it? The point is, I’m not so sure that no matter how much effort you put into a test like this, your results will determine which club is best…..except in THAT particular test. And, without all the same shafts in each head, even THAT is not a realistic result. You are comparing apples and oranges and lemons and watermelons, once different shafts enter the equation. Again, I appreciate the effort and like all the testing that MGS does, but unless the test is with millions of golfers and every feasible shaft combination, I’m not confident that we can glean that much choice-making information to shop for a new fairway metal. Even so, thank you for the effort.

Bill

10 months ago

All true man… but these “tests” aren’t really supposed to be the end all be all – really they’re just interesting and that’s about it regarding usefulness. I do appreciate the time that goes into it, but for me personally – none of this is really useful.

Many of the MGS editors have been quoted saying the same thing many times, which is the most important statement when it comes to golf equipment:

GET FIT.

I feel like I’m always on these sites and forums saying the same thing… testing data is absolutely irrelevant. Yeah, the weekend golfer or guy in the office trying to impress coworkers goes to Dick’s Sporting Goods to buy whatever the “latest and greatest” is off the rack. If you’ve been playing golf seriously for any duration, you know this is a cardinal sin. The simple fact is that every person needs to go through a fitting for all the clubs in the bag. If you can’t afford it or don’t want it, at bare minimum get fit for your irons so you have an idea of your swing profile.

I’ve only been playing golf for 5-6 years now and have been fit twice. I am a bit of an equipment whore, but I’ve never bought anything off the rack and everything I own is built to spec or I bought it already in a configuration that is to my spec.

TL;DR the data for these tests is interesting, but hardly useful unless you are the type of person who wants to buy your golf gear off the rack at a major retailer.

Rick

10 months ago

I’d be interested in knowing how the baseline numbers are calculated for these tests. As far as my understanding (which I’ll admit is limited), the strokes gained calculation would be fairly sensitive to what is used to calculate the base line. It works for the tour as they have a large amount of data from very consistent players. Are you using the standard tour baselines?

Matt

10 months ago

I’m confused by the year-to-year disparities in results. The Titleist 917 Fs are a constant in the ‘17 and ‘18 tests, but the distance declined meaningfully from 2017 to 2018. Are the 2018 subjects testing all clubs? Because if not, the ‘17 results for the 917 could have been used. Very confusing.

Love the site love the work you do. I don’t understand please help. You test with a ball that may or may not fit most plyers testing. That ball is a mid swingING low spin ball. Big hitters are going to spin it to much slow singers not enough. Why aren’t you using balls that fit each player to there swing speed ? Numbers would be more accurate to reflect the players ability/speed ? Example a strong hitters swING speed 105 plus is going spin that ball to much. A slow swinger won’t spin it enough. Numbers will be skewed. Thanks for the help

Brad

10 months ago

Please provide the data and rankings based on swing speed. I swing my lob wedge faster than the stated swing speed (64mph) of the slowest tester and could probably only hit 125mph swing speed with a 3 wood on my best day, if I didn’t care about keeping the ball on the planet. Like another commenter said, I have hit a 5 iron as far as the average carry distance of the longest club in this test and the listed distances are about where I would expect my 4 hybrid to go most days, not my 3 wood.

So, the results are not overly relevant to me, nor to many golfers, unless they tend to vary their swing speed by 50+ mph from swing to swing. If you can break it down by a few swing speed brackets, such as those below, it would be more helpful. However, I understand this would reduce the sample size of your data in each bracket, so possibly make those results less statistically significant as well:

J

They do this already with drivers. I think all you really need to do is ask, not make crazy claims of how far you carry a 5 to justify why they should break it down in swing speed brackets.

On great days I hit a 4 hybrid 200 after carry, I can’t hit a 5 iron 200 on any day of the week. On really great days I can hit my 3w off the deck 250 yards (I have data to back it up too). However; these distances are about what I average. So my guess these would be based on 95-105mph swing speed, because I also have data that shows my swing speed in that range.

Brad

10 months ago

My average 23° 4 hybrid goes the stated distance of these 3 woods in the data. I have a swing speed around 110mph for my driver, and I HAVE hit my 5 iron 205+ yards total (not carry) on a few occasions on fairly level fairways. It averages closer to 195 though.

My point was, that a 207 yard carry with a 3 wood is low for anyone swinging said club anywhere 100mph or faster. It would be exceptional distance for someone swinging the club 64mph though. Hence, the numbers have been averaged using too large a variance for my liking. MGS have not broken 3 woods down by swing speed for some time from what I can see. They do with the drivers, but not other clubs.

robert pace

10 months ago

im confused, nearly 5000 shots with swing speeds low to 125.
and yet these carry distances are about my 5 iron.
would be nice to know the breakdown of swing speeds and shafts.
i.e. fast swings = no trouble getting ball airborn.

Ryebread

10 months ago

I love MGS, have for years, and think that this is my favorite equipment site. Having said that, I fully agree with this point. All of the “most wanted” club reviews the last two years have pretty much been copy and paste on the words, insert the data points on shot numbers, etc., change the pictures, summarize the data in Tableau and publish. I know they are hit generators, but the actual writing time on these are the lowest on the site. It is odd for a site that will in turn do an in depth interview with a boutique iron maker.

Come on guys. Give us some Tony in an editorial fashion. Give us swing speed break downs. Tell us you were surprised that Tour Edge and Wilson kept up with might Callaway and outgunned TM and Ping. Tell us why Rogue looks like the winner but it is really the CBX. Let’s have Tony shave his head again.

As for the results, yeah for Tour Edge. They have long made very good FWs and hybrids, but have been hanging out of the testing. Unfortunately for me, the last of their smaller headed models to work for me was the CB5, which most internet golfers claim is too spinny. I guess it is different strokes or different folks…

Mike

10 months ago

The testers must be the most accurate golfers in the world. If i could get these offline figures i would be the happiest golfer in the world. But i guess only the best shots are included. Could it be that some clubs have a higher number of offline shots than others. If that is the case then is the test fair?

What the test obviously shows is that we golfers need to test a number of different clubs to determine what suits us best and perhaps importantly what suits our budget best.

Another great review by mygolfspy and another series of interesting comments by the readers.

Andrew Han

Interesting to know that my two current fairways of choice came out #1 and in a tie for #2 in this test. I have been gaming the 13.5* TEE CBX Strong 3-wood with a Mitsubishi Tensei Blue PRO 70-S shaft since the fall of 2017, and I love that club. However, I found a great deal on a Tour-issue Rogue Sub Zero 15* club has (almost 220 grams and with a 1.25* to 1.5* open clubface), so I shafted it up at 42.5″ playing length with an AXE XCaliber PRO fairway shaft (78 grams, Tour Stiff flex). I have played 3 rounds with this Rogue Sub Zero 3-wood, and it hangs in there pretty well with the longer and stronger lofted CBX. The CBX is a few yards longer for me, but I think that the Rogue Sub Zero 3w is a bit more accurate …. at least it has been so far.

For reference, I am 69 years old, with a 13 handicap, and I still generate 108-110 MPH of clubhead speed with my driver, and about 104-105 with the 3-wood. With these two fairways, I get 240 to 245+ yards of carry and about 260 to 270 yards of total distance, depending on how firm and fast the fairways are that day.

Spitfisher

10 months ago

I get the strokes gained, I really do….but like some I really think you need to either differentiate by club head speed or by handicap. Just A. B. C . players.
If people are looking at this data for advice or to possible consider purchasing you are so close. But its your site not mine.

I can guarantee that 84 year old did not need a 3 wood, instead a 4 or 5 wood would be optimum for him or her, like wise for the 75 mph and lower club head speed. The 110 mph plus club head speeds would be optimized by a number of tour head ( smaller) or sub zero heads that were tested.

MyGolfSpy

10 months ago

Handicap does not always correlate well with performance.

EXAMPLE:
You can have a golfer who is great off the tee but has a high handicap (poor putter, etc).
vs
You can have another golfer no good off the tee but has a great short game with a better handicap.

Therefore breaking down via handicap would not be as valuable as some other more common swing characteristicts.

Adrian

10 months ago

It strikes me the vast majority carry within 4 yards of each other and the vast majority are offline within 2 yards of each other, basically they are all the same. Granted certain clubs will suit certain individuals better but this give no indication of which they might be. I am struggling to understand how this is much help to anyone?

One of the observations coming out of this is that we didn’t see as significant a difference (TruRank percentages) as we see in most other tests. Could be that guys struggle with 3-woods and that when you find one that works, you’re probably going to want to ride it out a bit longer than most anything else in the bag.

Shane Jones

10 months ago

Tony,

I know you guys typically use 3-woods for the test (because most people carry a 3-wood). But if this test was with 4-woods, 3HL or whatever the manufacturer calls it, would the results have been different?

P.S. I play an Exotics CBX 4-wood and that thing is long. They aren’t for everyone though because the face is slightly deeper than some.

Emery

10 months ago

Look over the data….50% of the clubs are about the same. I like the Wilsons’ numbers due to the lower offline number. Personally, I use PING G400 but the numbers say I could game any of these clubs tested, of course, color would be a big decision maker!

DaveyD

Stephen D

10 months ago

I am looking for the raw data, but I don’t see it. I clicked on the How We Test page, yet no data there either. The only data that is provided doesn’t jive with the results given. Do you guys perform a statistically significant analysis on your results? Nothing should be declared “better” than another unless the data shows that the difference between the clubs is statistically significant.

Rick

10 months ago

I’d be interested in this as well. I’d also be interested hearing some thoughts on effect size. For the vast majority of golfers, is there really a difference in a club that carries 202 yds vs another that carries 207?

Fozcycle

GMack Golf

10 months ago

Tony, I appreciate all of your efforts. I really do. All very good information. But, your readers need to understand that you are rating the whole club, not the just the head. So, if you are looking to get a club retail(stock), this is tremendous information. If you are looking for custom, then go to a good fitter and try a number of combinations of heads and shafts that fits your game. Don’t restrict yourself to the heads that tested best in the stock configuration.

That’s basically it. I’m sure that stats guys will jump on me for this, but one interpretation is that our results suggest that for any given golfer, the CBX is most likely to be among his top-performing 3-woods.

A good bit of this depends on your metric. We use Strokes Gained because it’s a single metric that provides a near-complete performance picture. It combines elements of distance and accuracy while also taking into account the resulting lie condition of the shot (it’s better to be in the fairway than rough). Distance alone obviously has flaws, and while it’s easy to fawn over accuracy, very often the most accurate clubs are among the shortest (probably worth mentioning that the straight driver of the ball on the PGA Tour almost invariably loses his tour card).

But hey…if I guys just want distance and only distance, I ran the total distance through our significance engine and here’s what I got:

John

I’m a huge NBA fan. Most people still look at counting stats as the metrics that matter, despite the overwhelming evidence that those data just don’t matter unless there’s proper analysis of it.

That’s what you gentlemen have done, and it makes sense.

But I think that you can see throughout the comments that people don’t understand, that the cbx is more accurate for more people. I don’t know how many times that you have to write that, but it seems like it needs it again:

IT’S MORE ACCURATE FOR MORE PEOPLE.

So, I’ll test it out to see if that’s true for me

KJR

10 months ago

I get it, as I reviewed the page describing how you test. “For each shot, we calculate the strokes gained value before calculating the strokes gained average for every tester with each club”. That said, why not provide the results as you have above, and provide an alternative straight performance result, for the guy who can’t quite grasp the strokes gained value?

Lee H

10 months ago

Looking at it from the surface, why do the launch angles look so low? Shouldn’t the degrees go up as you go from driver to 3 wood to 5 wood, etc.? I’m used to seeing my driver at 14-15 degrees and my 3 wood slightly higher.

Mark

10 months ago

Generally your angle of attack with a driver is slightly up which increases launch angle. But that driver is teed up a good bit. 3 wood attack angles are usually down because you are hitting off the turf, or a much lower teed ball.
At least that is the way I understand it.

For each shot, we calculate the strokes gained value before calculating the strokes gained average for every tester with each club.

Next, we identify the top performing club (the one with the highest average strokes gained) for each tester. Then, for each golfer, using a 90% or 95% confidence interval (95% for everything but putter tests), we identify any other clubs for which the strokes gained average is not reliably different from the top performer. The number of clubs in this statistical top group varies between testers. For some testers, there is a single statistically significant best, while for others, more than half the field is shown not to be reliably different from an individual’s top performer.

Our Most Wanted winner is the club that finishes in the statistically significant top group for the greatest percentage of our testers. To simplify things a bit, we call the final order TRUERank; a metric that includes the order of finish (rank), along with the percentage of golfers for whom each club was shown to be in the statistical top group.

NickDanger

Andrew Han

Brad

10 months ago

I haven’t hit the exotics woods yet, but the new Callaway Rogue fairway woods are sensational. The ease of hitting suits anyone and Its been a long time since I could shape shots both ways with precision in a fairway wood. I’ve carried a Titleist 909F3 for years bc nothing would shape shots accurately every shot I needed. Until the rogue that is. Awesome reviews again!!

Jerry G

10 months ago

Of course, this test does not mean that the top fairways should be your most wanted fairway. For example, I can’t launch #1-3 enough to use them. Don’t know about the others but am using the TEE Beta Fairways in 16.5 and 18 in a real GD AD F fairway shaft. Tried that shaft in the Rogue, and it was a no go. Get fit.

Kent

Ryan

10 months ago

Why such a huge difference in distance between 2017 and 2018? Were you guys using different lofts from year to year? The Cobra F7 from last year that lead in distance would only be 16th on the list this year in distance. Just wondering why the 9 yard gap from first in 2017 to 2018.

Michael

10 months ago

If “averages don’t tell you much of anything”, then why is that the bulk of the data you are providing? Why not provide strokes gained by each club if “shooting lower scores” is what you are testing for?

We do it because that data is the foundation for our results, it’s just not as absolute as everyone wants it to be.

We’ve published strokes gained numbers (values like -.04334) in the past and it only served to muddy the waters. Strokes Gained methodology inherently favors golfers who hit it longer, so what you end up with is a ranking of the clubs for which the longest hitters performed the best, not the ones which performed best across the entire pool. The workaround we’ve used in the past is to compare the strokes gained of a given club to the average for a given tester. That’s a bit more complicated still and ultimately doesn’t represent the values we use in our ranking.

#1 is the club that was in a statistically reliable top group (based on strokes gained) for the highest percentage of golfers.

The problem here is that golfers have been conditioned for the last decade plus to be receptive to launch monitor based advertising that doesn’t offer any real context. You want the longest, feel free to buy Rogue. It might be reliably longer…it might not. Our results certainly suggest it’s a damn good club, it just wasn’t the best under our methodology.

Mark

10 months ago

So Tony, what you’re saying is that in spite of the data (which favors the Rogue in almost every aspect of testing), the CBX was liked or performed better for 10% more players?

Looking at the raw data, can you make any determination about the statistical significance of the results? Can you say that across the 20 testers that the 1/2 of proximity to the centerline, or even the 4 yards of distance is reliable? You can’t, nobody can. That’s exactly why, after discussing the new methodology with 3 of the game’s leading manufacturers, we do it the way we do.

You can build whatever story you want from raw data – it’s why it’s such an amazing marketing tool – but without understanding what if any significance is contained within, you’re just looking at numbers.

JPBALL

10 months ago

Tony, if the “average” reader of your service isn’t getting the “value” of your methodology, exactly who are you writing for? Your responses captured here appear defensive in nature, and not particularly helpful. I’m pretty geeky, but the gap between the presented data and the interpreted data are not obvious.

What we’ve found is that the average reader is more than capable of understanding the methodology provided

1) He’s invested enough to take the time to read about how we test
2) He’s willing to check pre-conceived notions about what defines performance at the door

If asking someone to read the page that explains how we do things before complaining about how we do things, then I’m guilty as charged. I concede it’s a non-standard way to present results given how we’ve been conditioned to look at distance and accuracy as absolutes, but it’s a methodology we believe in, and one the industry largely supports. What we generally find is most of the blowback comes from people upset that their club didn’t win – and so they look for ways to shoot holes in the test.

I understand what you’re saying about the apparent disconnect between the data and the results. It’s not ideal, but it certainly serves to illustrate the disconnect in what golfers look at on the launch monitor when they buy. I absolutely believe our methodology is the best way to test and rank and I while it’s not always easily explained or understood (especially for those who can’t be bothered to try), the only real solution is to not show the data at all. Tempting, at times, but runs contrary to the idea of a 100% data-driven test.

Mark

10 months ago

My thoughts exactly. Looks to me like the only thing the CBX beat the Rogue on is Shot Area

Timbo

Norm

10 months ago

Excellent study as usual. I’m a 7 handicap and many of my playing partners over the years have used the Tour Exotics 3 wood with very good results. For those questioning why not the Rogue and Sub Zero Rogue, it’s easy. Yes, they go slightly further but , you’re opening yourself up for a bigger miss. At my level I’m often out driven but I can usually outscore opponents. Distance is important but accuracy most important. The numbers never lie. Great work.